October Term 2000 · Docket 00-152
Does a state labor code violate due process by withholding payment?
The dispute centers on whether a state law denies a property interest without due process.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Kerrigan cited a recent case suggesting an assignee status in law.
Mr. Lamken argued the California Labor Code does not violate due process for three reasons.
Mr. Seideman responded to a question about the client's actions after payment was withheld.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 3-5
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case involves a dispute over payment withheld by a prime contractor. One side argues the state law violates due process. The other side argues the law is constitutional.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 3-5
What each side wants
One side wants the court to find the state law unconstitutional.
The other side wants the court to uphold the state law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-19
What each side says
One side argues the state law deprives a party of a property interest without due process.
The other side argues the state law does not deprive a party of a property interest without due process.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-19
What the justices asked
What did the client do after the prime withheld payment?
Did the client seek redress or respond to the withheld payment?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 3-5
Why it matters
The outcome determines whether state labor codes can withhold payments without violating constitutional due process protections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-19
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 3-5
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-19
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.